DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 4/28/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-21 have been examined herein. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections and interpretations have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action if Final.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, “a body” should read “[[a]] the body” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 19, “a body” should read “[[a]] the body” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claims 3 and 18 are requiring the motor and body to stay together while the tank is separated. However, the respective independent claims now require the lid to be removable from the body, wherein the separator motor is located within the lid. Overall, it appears the language of dependent claims 3 and 18 are drawn towards different embodiments than the respective independent claims, wherein the combination does not comply with the written description requirement.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, line 9, the language recites the term “the body”. However, the term “body” has not yet been introduced. Therefore, the term “the body” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “[[the]] a body”.
Claims 11-20 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beskow et al. (US PGPUB 20080040883), hereinafter Beskow, in view of Tan et al. (CN 215348672), hereinafter Tan.
Regarding claim 1, Beskow teaches a cleaning system (fig. 10-10B), comprising:
a body of a surface cleaner (fig. 10A, structure indicated by element 104 is interpreted as a body of a surface cleaner);
a suction motor configured to provide a suction force to draw debris and air into the surface cleaner [0051];
a tank (fig. 10B, dirt collection assembly 1000) coupled to the body (the tank is coupled to the body when assembled for operation) and including a cavity configured to receive and store the debris drawn into the surface cleaner [0102];
a separator (fig. 10A, cyclone insert 1032) configured to separate the debris from the air drawn into the surface cleaner [0105];
a lid (see annotated fig. 10A below) of the tank that defines an air flow path along which the air separated from the debris flows from the separator toward an air exit hole formed in the body of the surface cleaner (fig. 10A, the air flows through filter cage 1044 then through the lid to the body 104 and exits the body via exhaust outlets 118), the lid being removable from the body (see annotated fig. 10A below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
674
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the lid in a closed position closes an opening of the tank (fig. 10 and 10A, when assembled, the structure interpreted as the lid closes an open end 1008 of the tank [0102]), and the lid in an open position allows the debris to exit the cavity through the opening (figs. 10-10A, the lid in the open position allows the debris to exit the cavity through the opening); and
wherein the tank is configured to be removed from the body with the lid in the closed position (fig. 10-10B, the tank is removed from the body with the lid initially in the closed position, then the lid can be separated from the tank).
Beskow does not explicitly teach a separator configured to rotate to separate the debris from the air drawn into the surface cleaner by directing the debris radially outward into the cavity of the tank,
a separator motor located within the lid and configured to drive rotation of the separator.
However, Tan teaches a cleaning tool with a rotating separator 124. Additionally, Tan teaches
a separator configured to rotate (fig. 2-3, rotating separator 124) to separate the debris from the air drawn into the surface cleaner by directing the debris radially outward into the cavity of the tank (page 6 of the previously attached translation, third paragraph),
a separator motor (fig. 2-3, motor 123) configured to drive the rotation of the separator (rotating separator 124); wherein the separator motor is configured to be removed from the body with the tank (figs. 2-3, wherein fig. 3 teaches the separator motor is configured to be removed from the body with the tank).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beskow to incorporate the teachings of Tan to provide a separator configured to rotate to separate the debris from the air drawn into the surface cleaner by directing the debris radially outward into the cavity of the tank, a separator motor located within the lid and configured to drive rotation of the separator, wherein the separator motor is configured to be removed from the body with the tank. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute Tan’s separator configuration (rotating separator and separator motor) for Beskow’s separator (cyclonic insert), wherein Tan’s incorporated separator configuration is also attached to the lid structure (of Beskow, as previously interpreted), as taught by Beskow. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known vacuum separator for another known vacuum separator to obtain the predictable results of separating debris from the airflow. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the modified device to function as a handheld vacuum cleaner.
In summary, Beskow, as modified, teaches
a separator (incorporated rotating separator of Tan) configured to rotate to separate the debris from the air drawn into the surface cleaner by directing the debris radially outward into the cavity of the tank (as incorporated from Tan),
a separator motor (separator motor as incorporated from Tan) located within the lid (Tan’s separator configuration (motor and separator) were incorporated for the separator of Beskow, wherein Tan’s incorporated separator configuration is also attached to the lid structure of Beskow. Beskow, as modified, teaches the separator motor is located within the boundary of the lid, wherein the lid must be opened and removed to access the separator motor) and configured to drive rotation of the separator (as incorporated from Tan, see above combination for more details).
Regarding claim 2, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches wherein the separator motor is configured to be removed from the body with the tank (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein the separator motor of Tan was incorporated and attached to the removable lid of Beskow, wherein the lid and separator motor are configured to be removed from the body with the tank (fig. 10A of Beskow)).
Regarding claim 4, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches wherein the tank is configured to be removed from the body with the separator in the tank (fig. 10A of Beskow, wherein the tank is configured to be removed from the body with the separator in the tank, wherein Beskow was modified to include the separator of Tan), and the lid moving from the closed position to the open position is configured to cause the separator to be removed from the tank (fig. 10A of Beskow, wherein the lid moving from the closed position to the open position is configured to cause the separator to be removed from the tank, wherein the separator of Tan was incorporated for the separator of Beskow).
Regarding claim 5, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches wherein the lid moving from the closed position (fig. 10A of Beskow, wherein the closed position is interpreted as the assembled position) to the open position (as shown in fig. 10A of Beskow) is configured to cause the separator motor and the separator to be removed from the tank (fig. 10A of Beskow, wherein the open position of fig. 10A results in the separator motor and the separator being removed from the tank of Beskow, as modified).
Regarding claim 9, Beskow teaches a cleaning system (fig. 10-10B), comprising:
a handheld surface cleaner (fig. 10B) comprising:
an inlet through which debris and air are allowed to enter the handheld surface cleaner (fig. 10B, inlet 114),
a tank (fig. 10B, dirt collection assembly 1000),
a separator (fig. 10A, cyclone insert 1032) configured to separate the debris and the air to allow the debris to be collected in the tank and to allow the air to exit the handheld surface cleaner [0105],
a lid (see annotated fig. 10A below, wherein the indicated structure is interpreted as the lid) configured to be removed from the tank (fig. 10A) to allow the debris collected in the tank to be removed from the tank through an open end of the tank (fig. 10A), the lid being removable from the body (fig. 10A, wherein structure indicated by element 104 is interpreted as a body of a surface cleaner),
PNG
media_image1.png
674
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a cap (fig. 10, structure indicated by element 1012 is interpreted as the cap) separate from the lid (fig. 10) and configured to allow the debris collected in the tank to be removed from the tank through an opening formed in a sidewall of the tank (fig. 10, dirt access port 1010 is interpreted as the opening formed in the sidewall of the tank, wherein the cap and port allow the debris collected in the tank to be removed from the tank);
wherein the cap is attached to the tank (fig. 10A) and is configured to be removed completely from the tank and replaced on the tank (fig. 10, [0102]).
Beskow does not explicitly teach a separator motor located within the lid and configured to drive rotation of the separator.
However, Tan teaches a cleaning tool with a rotating separator 124. Additionally, Tan teaches
a separator motor (fig. 2-3, motor 123) configured to drive rotation of the separator (rotating separator 124).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beskow to incorporate the teachings of Tan to provide a separator configured to rotate to separate the debris from the air drawn into the surface cleaner by directing the debris radially outward into the cavity of the tank, a separator motor located within the lid and configured to drive rotation of the separator, wherein the separator motor is configured to be removed from the body with the tank. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute Tan’s separator configuration (rotating separator and separator motor) for Beskow’s separator (cyclonic insert), wherein Tan’s incorporated separator configuration is also attached to the lid structure (of Beskow, as previously interpreted), as taught by Beskow. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known vacuum separator for another known vacuum separator to obtain the predictable results of separating debris from the airflow. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the modified device to function as a handheld vacuum cleaner.
In summary, Beskow, as modified, teaches
a separator (incorporated rotating separator of Tan) configured to rotate to separate the debris from the air drawn into the surface cleaner by directing the debris radially outward into the cavity of the tank (as incorporated from Tan),
a separator motor (separator motor as incorporated from Tan) located within the lid (Tan’s separator configuration (motor and separator) were incorporated for the separator of Beskow, wherein Tan’s incorporated separator configuration is also attached to the lid structure of Beskow. Beskow, as modified, teaches the separator motor is located within the boundary of the lid, wherein the lid must be opened and removed to access the separator motor) and configured to drive rotation of the separator (as incorporated from Tan, see above combination for more details).
Regarding claim 11, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches wherein the cap is movable between an open position [0102 of Beskow], in which the opening is not sealed, and a closed position [0102 of Beskow], in which the opening is sealed; and the cap includes a lock configured to lock the cap in the closed position ([0102 of Beskow], wherein the resilient tabs that hold the cover in the sealing position are interpreted as a lock configured to lock the cap in the closed position).
Regarding claim 12, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches wherein the cap is pivotally attached to the tank ([0102] and fig. 10, pivot 1014 of Beskow).
Regarding claim 16, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches wherein the separator is non-removably coupled to the lid (fig. 10A of Beskow, wherein the separator is non-removably coupled to the structure interpreted as the lid, wherein the separator of Tan was incorporated for the separator of Beskow).
Regarding claim 17, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches wherein the separator motor is non-removably coupled to the lid (fig. 10A of Beskow, wherein the separator is non-removably coupled to the structure interpreted as the lid, wherein the separator and separator motor of Tan was incorporated for the separator of Beskow).
Regarding claim 19, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches wherein the handheld surface cleaner further comprises a body (fig. 10A of Beskow, body indicated by element 104) configured to be removably coupled to the tank (fig. 10A of Beskow); and the lid is configured to be removable from the tank only with the body removed from the tank (fig. 10A of Beskow, the structure interpreted as the lid is configured to be removable from the tank only with the body removed from the tank).
Regarding claim 20, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches wherein the handheld surface cleaner further comprises a suction motor at the body [0051], the suction motor being configured to provide a suction force to draw the debris and air into the inlet [0051].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beskow et al. (US PGPUB 20080040883), hereinafter Beskow, in view of Tan et al. (CN 215348672), hereinafter Tan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun (CN 103445718).
Regarding claim 6, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Beskow, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the separator has an open distal end through which the air enters the separator;
the separator has an open proximal end through which the air exits the separator toward the air flow path; and
the separator has a plurality of holes in a sidewall of the separator through which the debris exits the separator.
However, Sun teaches a surface cleaning suction device which includes a rotating separator (fig. 4-5, structures indicated by 4-1,4-2, 4-3 and 4-4). Overall, Sun teaches
wherein the separator has an open distal end through which the air enters the separator (fig. 4, open end indicated near element 4-1);
the separator has an open proximal end through which the air exits the separator toward the air flow path (fig. 4, opposite end of previously interpreted open end); and
the separator has a plurality of holes in a sidewall of the separator (fig. 5, holes 4-4) through which the debris exits the separator (fig. 4, paragraphs 0036-0037 of the attached translation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Beskow, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Sun to provide wherein the separator has an open distal end through which the air enters the separator; the separator has an open proximal end through which the air exits the separator toward the air flow path; and the separator has a plurality of holes in a sidewall of the separator through which the debris exits the separator. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute the rotating separator of Sun for the rotating separator of Beskow, as modified. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known rotating separator for another known rotating separator to obtain the predictable results of providing a rotating separator to cleanse the incoming airflow. Additionally, doing so would increase the utility of Beskow, as modified, by providing the capability of separating liquid from the air flow.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beskow et al. (US PGPUB 20080040883), hereinafter Beskow, in view of Tan et al. (CN 215348672), hereinafter Tan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Touya et al. (US Patent 4924548), hereinafter Touya.
Regarding claim 7, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Beskow, as modified, does not explicitly teach a valve upstream of the separator; wherein the valve is configured to allow the debris and air drawn into the surface cleaner to flow proximally toward the separator and is configured to prevent the debris and air drawn into the surface cleaner from flowing distally.
However, Touya teaches a portable vacuum cleaner including a valve (fig. 1, check valve 22) upstream of the separator (fig. 1, valve 22 is upstream of filter 23); wherein the valve is configured to allow the debris and air drawn into the surface cleaner to flow proximally toward the separator and is configured to prevent the debris and air drawn into the surface cleaner from flowing distally (check valve 22, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Beskow, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Touya to provide a valve upstream of the separator; wherein the valve is configured to allow the debris and air drawn into the surface cleaner to flow proximally toward the separator and is configured to prevent the debris and air drawn into the surface cleaner from flowing distally. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide a check valve in the cleaner of Beskow, as modified. Doing so would prevent reverse flow of drawn-in air (col. 10, lines 19-21 of Touya) which promotes cleanliness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beskow et al. (US PGPUB 20080040883), hereinafter Beskow, in view of Tan et al. (CN 215348672), hereinafter Tan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lubbers et al. (US PGPUB 20220346610), hereinafter Lubbers, and Kim et al. (US PGPUB 20250176774), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 8, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches
wherein the tank is configured to releasably couple to the body (fig. 10A of Beskow).
Beskow, as modified, does not explicitly teach
the cleaning system further comprises a controller configured to:
determine whether the tank is releasably coupled to the body,
in response to determining that the tank is releasably coupled to the body, allow the suction motor to be powered on, and
in response to determining that the tank is not releasably coupled to the body, prevent the suction motor from being powered on.
However, Lubbers teaches a vacuum cleaner, wherein control circuitry recognizes the attached parts and controls the airflow to a suitable level [0097], wherein the attached parts can alternate between a wet and dry dirt management system [0096], wherein recognizing if the dry dirt management system is attached includes recognizing if the tank is attached (fig. 1, dust collection volume 22).
Additionally, Kim teaches a cleaner wherein the control unit determines if the connection hose is accurately coupled. When the control unit determines that the connection hose is accurately coupled, the control unit operates the dust collecting motor. When the control unit determines that the connection hose is not accurately coupled, the control unit may stop the operation of the dust collection motor [0303].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Beskow, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Lubbers and Kim to provide
the cleaning system further comprises a controller configured to:
determine whether the tank is releasably coupled to the body,
in response to determining that the tank is releasably coupled to the body, allow the suction motor to be powered on, and
in response to determining that the tank is not releasably coupled to the body, prevent the suction motor from being powered on.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Lubbers to provide a controller (control circuitry) which determines when the tank is properly releasably attached (as taught by Lubbers), wherein in response to determining that the tank is properly attached, the controller allows the suction motor to be powered on (as taught by Kim), wherein in response to determining that the tank is not properly attached, the controller prevents the suction motor from being powered on (as taught by Kim). Doing so would ensure the device is properly assembled which prevents damage to the device and prevents dirt from inadvertently spreading. Additionally, doing so would prevent the vacuum from operating when not properly assembled, which promotes the cleaning function and prevents damage to the operator.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beskow et al. (US PGPUB 20080040883), hereinafter Beskow, in view of Tan et al. (CN 215348672), hereinafter Tan, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Mantyla et al. (US PGPUB 20150135470), hereinafter Mantyla.
Regarding claim 13, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Beskow, as modified, teaches the open end of the tank is at a proximal end of the tank (fig. 10A of Beskow).
Beskow, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the inlet is in a distal portion of the tank; and the cap is located between the inlet and the open end.
However, Mantyla teaches a handheld vacuum cleaner wherein the inlet 14 is in a distal portion of the tank and a cap 40 (fig. 1) is located between the inlet and the exit end of the tank.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Beskow, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mantyla to provide wherein the inlet is in a distal portion of the tank; and the cap is located between the inlet and the open end. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the inlet of Beskow is in a distal portion of the tank and the cap is located between the inlet and the open end of the tank. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known inlet configuration for another known inlet configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing an inlet to the vacuum cleaner. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device to function as intended.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beskow et al. (US PGPUB 20080040883), hereinafter Beskow, in view of Tan et al. (CN 215348672), hereinafter Tan, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Terry (US PGPUB 20200405112).
Regarding claim 14, Beskow, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Beskow, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the handheld surface cleaner further comprises a controller configured to control the separator motor based on a measured current of the separator motor.
However, Terry teaches a handheld vacuum cleaner including a motor configured to provide rotational energy to an impeller, a current sensor configured to sense current provided to the motor, and a controller having an electronic processor. The controller is configured to receive a current signal indicative of the current provided to the motor, filter the current signal to produce a filtered current signal, and control the motor based on the filtered current signal [0004]. Overall, Terry teaches the handheld surface cleaner further comprises a controller configured to control the motor based on a measured current of the motor [0004].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Beskow, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Terry to provide the handheld surface cleaner further comprises a controller configured to control the motor based on a measured current of the motor. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate wherein a controller controls the separator motor based on a filtered current signal of the separator motor received from a current sensor. Doing so would prevent damage to the motor and promote longevity of the motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Regarding claims 3 and 18, a determination of allowability over the prior art could not be made in view of the above 35 USC 112(a) rejections.
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, Beskow et al. (US PGPUB 20080040883), hereinafter Beskow, in view of Tan et al. (CN 215348672), hereinafter Tan, and further in view of Terry (US PGPUB 20200405112) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the feature of the controller is also configured to control the suction motor based on the measured current of the separator motor as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 9, 14 and 15.
Regarding claim 21, Beskow et al. (US PGPUB 20080040883), hereinafter Beskow, in view of Sharpe (US PGUPB 20030106858), and further in view of Terry (US PGPUB 20200405112) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the feature of the controller is also configured to control the suction motor based on the measured current of the separator motor as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claim 21.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Beskow fails to teach the amended language of claim 9 (page 8 of Applicant’s remarks). Applicant also argues the claims depending therefrom are allowably by virtue of dependency. However, Beskow alone was not relied upon to teach the amended language. Rather, Beskow in view of Tan was relied upon to teach the amended language. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly except for claim 15. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Beskow in view of Sharpe fails to teach the amended language of claim 1. Applicant also argues claims 2-8 are allowable by virtue of dependency. However, Beskow in view of Sharpe was not relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 1. Rather, Beskow in view of Tan was relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 1. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Claims 21 and 15 have been indicated as allowable subject matter.
See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights